I think the "lockdown" perception comes from the ease in which at least five or so schools could conceivably challenge the GoR. Personally, I think the real challenge comes from just Texas and/or Oklahoma choosing to walk. Inevitably, whether the Big XII owns their notes or not, that conference without those schools? Won't fetch a dime.

Unlike in the ACC...I think it takes a bigger core to undo that thing. No one, real chaser in that conference that makes everything better.

I think the "lockdown" perception comes from the ease in which at least five or so schools could conceivably challenge the GoR. Personally, I think the real challenge comes from just Texas and/or Oklahoma choosing to walk. Inevitably, whether the Big XII owns their notes or not, that conference without those schools? Won't fetch a dime.

Unlike in the ACC...I think it takes a bigger core to undo that thing. No one, real chaser in that conference that makes everything better.

But let's say Texas/OU/KU all jump ship for the B1G...the Big 12 still has the deal with the Sugar Bowl so they stay AQ, they still have their TV deals through 2025 with ESPN and FOX so they'll hang around raid the AAC (Houston/SMU/Tulane/Memphis/Cincy) and possibly add BYU/Boise fb.

But the arguement here is whether or not the GOR specifically tied to these TV deals or just an inter conference agreement unrelated (other than by the obvious time frame) to any TV deal. I could see them tieing this to a TV deal in order to fetch a higher price but then again maybe the fact that they had one in general was enough to achomplish that. That being said, if Oklahoma can just up and leave w/o affecting the TV deals that go to 2025, I don't see how legally the GOR doesn't become a strictly punitive punishment on top of the exit fee which could easily be argued away in court as the lack of OU doesn't affect the conference in the slightest and effectively (it could be argued when you consider the exit fee brings) nets more money to the conference.

Unless the TV network sues (which I'm not sure they have the right to sue a single school since that is one of the perks of creating the deals through the conference entity) the conference cannot sue the B1G for broadcasting Oklahoma sport if they cannot show any financial damages other than possible ticket sales or increased travel costs (which should/could be argue that they are more than be covered in the exit fee but no way does that total what the GOR would cost).

Once again, I don't know exactly what is in these GOR, but I could totally see how (if Delaney sweetens the deal like he did w/ MD) a school from the Big12 or ACC could jump. But honestly the only thing stopping the ACC schools is the MD lawsuit. Once that settles, the ACC will become just as poachable if not more than the Big 12.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Well, if KU, OU, & UT wound up in the B1G, it'd have that mailbox shape, with the post on the west side.

Yikes for Iowa State! Breaking away from KSU, OSU, even TTU, may take some politics on top of the GoR challenge.

Thinking about the aspects if the B1G was looking at KANSAS and/or UConn.

UConn would be an easier deal to make.UConn gets the B1G into New England. Even the ACC has a school there (BC). Argument could be made UConn would help with attention from around NYC & 'burbs. Population figures may favor UConn.Both UConn & Kansas are prominent with bb. Not a lot of difference with fb numbers, but UConn has actually been better of late & went to a BCS game before.Kansas has the AAU ties. UConn doesn't presently.If the B12 really was after inclusion of OU & UT, then Kansas offers the linkage. UConn does not come with any open links (unless the B1G really wanted 'Cuse or athletically underdevloped SUNY-Buffalo, an AAU school locked in a system whereby breaking forth would be unrealistic).

If somehow Kansas got opened to come alone on the western flank, would it be any more valuable than if the B1G just took UConn? They'd at least need one more for 16 if it was one or the other.

Any interest in Kansas would seem to be linked to multiple adds from the B12.

I just don't think the B12 or the ACC shall break with anything anytime soon. The B12 has probably thought about adding Cincinnati and another such as Memphis to improve connections to WVU. Apparently not enough motive for it, given each have certain characteristics not particularly favorable.I kind of think the B12 region needs a centralized conference there. They may be content to remain what they are. Still, the conference championship game matter shall get more scrutiny when playoff bids arise.

Texas with their comparatively huge revenue stream & power position, may not easily give up their situation even if it's the B1G taking multiple members. Not like something like this wasn't tried before involving other major conferences.

Looks like the B1G is going beyond the Midwest, which it was originated; now that Rutgers and Maryland would join for next season. If the conference plans to go upto 16, it should focus within the Midwest, and that's taking 2 from the Big XII. It should be Iowa State and West Virginia.

I think the "lockdown" perception comes from the ease in which at least five or so schools could conceivably challenge the GoR. Personally, I think the real challenge comes from just Texas and/or Oklahoma choosing to walk. Inevitably, whether the Big XII owns their notes or not, that conference without those schools? Won't fetch a dime.

Unlike in the ACC...I think it takes a bigger core to undo that thing. No one, real chaser in that conference that makes everything better.

But let's say Texas/OU/KU all jump ship for the B1G...the Big 12 still has the deal with the Sugar Bowl so they stay AQ, they still have their TV deals through 2025 with ESPN and FOX so they'll hang around raid the AAC (Houston/SMU/Tulane/Memphis/Cincy) and possibly add BYU/Boise fb.

But the arguement here is whether or not the GOR specifically tied to these TV deals or just an inter conference agreement unrelated (other than by the obvious time frame) to any TV deal. I could see them tieing this to a TV deal in order to fetch a higher price but then again maybe the fact that they had one in general was enough to achomplish that. That being said, if Oklahoma can just up and leave w/o affecting the TV deals that go to 2025, I don't see how legally the GOR doesn't become a strictly punitive punishment on top of the exit fee which could easily be argued away in court as the lack of OU doesn't affect the conference in the slightest and effectively (it could be argued when you consider the exit fee brings) nets more money to the conference.

Unless the TV network sues (which I'm not sure they have the right to sue a single school since that is one of the perks of creating the deals through the conference entity) the conference cannot sue the B1G for broadcasting Oklahoma sport if they cannot show any financial damages other than possible ticket sales or increased travel costs (which should/could be argue that they are more than be covered in the exit fee but no way does that total what the GOR would cost).

Once again, I don't know exactly what is in these GOR, but I could totally see how (if Delaney sweetens the deal like he did w/ MD) a school from the Big12 or ACC could jump. But honestly the only thing stopping the ACC schools is the MD lawsuit. Once that settles, the ACC will become just as poachable if not more than the Big 12.

I ask the same thing about the strength of GoR's when they are sync'ed to media deals, as appears to be the case with the Big XII and ACC. The renegotiation period...is it a suspension of the GoR that hinges on successful and unanimous renegotiation, or are these schools literally bound no matter that outcome?

If it's as easy as hitting pause during the renegotiation window and then fleeing, the next stumbling block isn't the conference or individual schools seeking damages...I think it might be a few of those bowls. Whereas the network can readjust the media deals and conference refill the lost inventory, the bowls are bound in a different way. I don't know if they get any special reevaluation based on certain schools leaving the conference. Bowls might go after the departing school, the departing school's old and new conferences, and maybe network partners. Who knows?

But the ACC...I think the UMD suit is just trivial red tape. The GoR came after UMD, and while FSU didn't approve the increased buy-out, they did put their name to GoR. All UMD's suit is going to solve is how much the Terps are on the hook to that exit fee. 1.25 or 3x ACC yearly operational costs.

I think, really, it's who's got the "look-in" sooner. It would have been the ACC, but the Notre Dame addition saw the reevaluation and GoR. I think Big XII's is up first...2016/17ish.

ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:

westwolf wrote:

The B1G has no interest in Iowa State.

How lame. Then the B1G or any other conference should expand upto 16. The max should be upto 14 members for ALL conferences in the NCAA. Iowa State would be a great choice to rival Iowa.

If they open the door to Iowa State, all heck breaks loose in the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Still, it's possible...I kind of thought Kansas and Iowa State kept extremely quiet during all those defections. Kansas could clearly move with more ease than many in that conference, but the Iowa State people weren't jabbering about matters. I found that very curious.

I ask the same thing about the strength of GoR's when they are sync'ed to media deals, as appears to be the case with the Big XII and ACC. The renegotiation period...is it a suspension of the GoR that hinges on successful and unanimous renegotiation, or are these schools literally bound no matter that outcome?

If it's as easy as hitting pause during the renegotiation window and then fleeing, the next stumbling block isn't the conference or individual schools seeking damages...I think it might be a few of those bowls. Whereas the network can readjust the media deals and conference refill the lost inventory, the bowls are bound in a different way. I don't know if they get any special reevaluation based on certain schools leaving the conference. Bowls might go after the departing school, the departing school's old and new conferences, and maybe network partners. Who knows?

But the ACC...I think the UMD suit is just trivial red tape. The GoR came after UMD, and while FSU didn't approve the increased buy-out, they did put their name to GoR. All UMD's suit is going to solve is how much the Terps are on the hook to that exit fee. 1.25 or 3x ACC yearly operational costs.

I think, really, it's who's got the "look-in" sooner. It would have been the ACC, but the Notre Dame addition saw the reevaluation and GoR. I think Big XII's is up first...2016/17ish.

Like I wrote above, I think the assumption is that they are tied together but I have not seen it that is true or not. I'm not sure how the bowls could sue the school as they are set up through the conference.

The ACC was looking at getting a netwrok but ESPN owns all of their rights 1st/2nd/and 3rd, so I don't see how that is possible, unless...they renegotiate or do a "look-in" and amend the payout of the contract so that the ACC can get back their 3rd tier rights...that is why I think the ACC more likely to be under attack plus I read that their GOR only holds up if a certain payout is met which its has not been (but once againI haven't seen their GOR so that too could be B/S).

The Bishin Cutter wrote:

ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:

westwolf wrote:

The B1G has no interest in Iowa State.

How lame. Then the B1G or any other conference should expand upto 16. The max should be upto 14 members for ALL conferences in the NCAA. Iowa State would be a great choice to rival Iowa.

If they open the door to Iowa State, all heck breaks loose in the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Still, it's possible...I kind of thought Kansas and Iowa State kept extremely quiet during all those defections. Kansas could clearly move with more ease than many in that conference, but the Iowa State people weren't jabbering about matters. I found that very curious.

Ding Ding Ding, Iowa St, Cincy, Pitt, and Temple are not getting into the Big Ten because if one does, the others will raise hell and same goes for Kansas St (if Kansas gets in) and Oklahoma State (if Oklahoma gets in).'

The only exceptions to this rule would be for ND (possibly Pitt makes it in if ND wants them), Texas (might take Texas Tech if that's the only way to land them, also would take A&M if it was possible), or UNC (would take Duke if that's all that's holding up the move).

Iowa State, Kansas, K State and Mizzou had an invite from the Big East when they thought the PAC16 was inevitable; Kansas was also in talks to take A&M's spot when they said no and also was apporached by the Big Ten back then to.

Iowa State and K State were discussing whether the Big East (now AAC) or MWC would be a better home for them...so I don't think they had anything up their sleeve. They were quiet because they didn't want to rock the boat, and oddly enough it worked for them.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Then the B1G or any other conference should expand upto 16. The max should be upto 14 members for ALL conferences in the NCAA. Iowa State would be a great choice to rival Iowa.

I agree on principle. I've said before 16 needs to be the maximum, not that all could or should do that. Beyond that, it ceases really being a conference, and more of a bargaining organization with multiple sub-divisions.They'll bypass some decent schools in their own footprint, to add in new states and untapped markets, aiming for those greater TV contracts and bowl deals. With all the saturation, where's the diminishing return point?

Then the B1G or any other conference should expand upto 16. The max should be upto 14 members for ALL conferences in the NCAA. Iowa State would be a great choice to rival Iowa.

I agree on principle. I've said before 16 needs to be the maximum, not that all could or should do that. Beyond that, it ceases really being a conference, and more of a bargaining organization with multiple sub-divisions.They'll bypass some decent schools in their own footprint, to add in new states and untapped markets, aiming for those greater TV contracts and bowl deals. With all the saturation, where's the diminishing return point?

You have a point there sec03, but look what happened to the WAC back in 1996. It didn't last long, like 3 years. It split into 2 8-team conferences, which one of them become a newer one, which is now known the Mountain West Conference. I believe that the Mountain West should not exist and that would help the Big West stay alive for football at that time, but it did not.

Then the B1G or any other conference should expand upto 16. The max should be upto 14 members for ALL conferences in the NCAA. Iowa State would be a great choice to rival Iowa.

I agree on principle. I've said before 16 needs to be the maximum, not that all could or should do that. Beyond that, it ceases really being a conference, and more of a bargaining organization with multiple sub-divisions.They'll bypass some decent schools in their own footprint, to add in new states and untapped markets, aiming for those greater TV contracts and bowl deals. With all the saturation, where's the diminishing return point?

You have a point there sec03, but look what happened to the WAC back in 1996. It didn't last long, like 3 years. It split into 2 8-team conferences, which one of them become a newer one, which is now known the Mountain West Conference. I believe that the Mountain West should not exist and that would help the Big West stay alive for football at that time, but it did not.

The problems in the WAC-16 were many. Footprint too big, media deal too low, too many school clusters unhappy with the scheduling rotation, politics...it was a mess.

In theory, this could also befall the B1G. They say they all want to play each other...that becomes more difficult the larger they grow.

Well, my hat's off to the WV board guy who posted this. It totally seemed like he was blowing smoke. But it's a very bland read...the real meat is in that media deal, since it seems like it dictates the thing. Essentially, they're toast if UT, OU, or KU walk.

Then the B1G or any other conference should expand upto 16. The max should be upto 14 members for ALL conferences in the NCAA. Iowa State would be a great choice to rival Iowa.

I agree on principle. I've said before 16 needs to be the maximum, not that all could or should do that. Beyond that, it ceases really being a conference, and more of a bargaining organization with multiple sub-divisions.They'll bypass some decent schools in their own footprint, to add in new states and untapped markets, aiming for those greater TV contracts and bowl deals. With all the saturation, where's the diminishing return point?

You have a point there sec03, but look what happened to the WAC back in 1996. It didn't last long, like 3 years. It split into 2 8-team conferences, which one of them become a newer one, which is now known the Mountain West Conference. I believe that the Mountain West should not exist and that would help the Big West stay alive for football at that time, but it did not.

The problems in the WAC-16 were many. Footprint too big, media deal too low, too many school clusters unhappy with the scheduling rotation, politics...it was a mess.

In theory, this could also befall the B1G. They say they all want to play each other...that becomes more difficult the larger they grow.

I believe that the Power-5 group would have tons of messes if they plan to have all teams within each conference play each other. The NCAA should had thought of putting a maximum of conference members. I believe that 12 to 14 should be the case. And outside the Power-5 (a.k.a. the non-AQ conferences), only C-USA so far might have over 14 members. The SEC is in the Southeast, the B1G is in the Midwest, the ACC is part Northeast/part South Atlantic, and the Big XII is in the South Central, while the Pac-12 is in the Far West (with the non-AQ Mountain West). I believe that D-I should re-organize for regional and conference purposes.

One consideration I mentioned before that as 5 power conferences are the clear result, each of the 5 major ones, team up with one each of the 5 non-AQs' for TV programming and certain OOC scheduling by collective contracting. Of course the payout would be much less for the lower conferences, but they could get some appreciable revenue in the process to stay viable.Non-AQ FBS conferences could be good fillers for Thursday night games, for example, and offer the sponsoring networks more content and features to work with and highlight. As with the AQ conferences, not all non-AQ conferences generate similar value. This could be factored-in in determining the proportional disbursements for each coop. The set-up could be generally regional, though some conferences are spread widely.Here's a hypothetical model, though it could be shifted based on preferences:

While the discrepancy between the SEC & SB (or possibly the B1G & the MAC) may be comparatively wider in terms of value, that's the point and intention. The B12, with fewer members for example, could have a better situation associated with one of the stronger non-AQs'. The PAC12 - MWC could be strongest pairing of the grouping, but the idea is about regionalism, and some benefits could come from a certain level of cooperation out west.It does not mean any form of cross-overs in membership, but it means mutual assistance, basic survival, getting more out of TV by all, and some limited, though somewhat consistent, auto-scheduling that could be less controversial. It shouldn't detract from the major conferences economically, rather it could help define their superiority while giving the non-AQs' a life-line to clutch.

This may be out-of-the-box thinking and would require cooperation by all, but it addresses certain TV matters and much of the OOC concerns. Play 8 or 9 conference games, play 1 game each with the cooperating conference, play at least one game by an AQ conference with an AQ conference, and have one or two games to schedule whomever a school would want or find available (a preferred FCS school, another AQ school, or another non-AQ FCS school).

The non-AQs' don't get great TV deals for the most part. So, latching on a given structure could enhance their worth. It could put an end to some significant part of this unsettling, crazy shifting that seems to never stabalize of late.

It does not mean any form of cross-overs in membership, but it means mutual assistance, basic survival, getting more out of TV by all, and some limited, though somewhat consistent, auto-scheduling that could be less controversial. It shouldn't detract from the major conferences economically, rather it could help define their superiority while giving the non-AQs' a life-line to clutch.

If they could stick to a lane, that would be fine. But even the B1G almost turned out the MAC, and why did the WAC die when they got better games against power opponents than the Mountain West? And couldn't the ACC just leave the Big East alone? The Big East then leave CUSA alone? And why does it seem like the Sun Belt is the "jobber" of choice by virtually every lesser P5 program?

Plus, where it concerns the B1G...what happens if and after they go to 16? My guess? 10 conference games at least, and maybe a call to push for 13 games nationally. If it's just 10 CGs with no 13th game, bye bye MAC relationship.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum